Analysis of Lopez vs. Gonzales Court Case

1058 Words3 Pages

Even before the Declaration of Independence was written, the United States was always a country where people journey upon to seek a better life to the land of the free in order to find a life style on the idea “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Since immigration is recognized as one of the largest dilemmas of homeland security, people value their safety, disregarding the fact that the United States was born from immigrants. However, this does not mean that immigrants do not have to obey the law; it is an obligation or else consequences will arise. Because the United States is a democratic nation, it trusts the people of the country to assist in the making and carrying out laws. When people do commit a crime, in a particular a drug crime, it is very important to where the felony occurred. In a few instances, if a felony is performed in the state where the crime is prosecuted, it is considered a misdemeanor under the federal law. In the case Lopez vs. Gonzales 417 F.3d 934, 935, Lopez, an immigrant from Mexico, living in South Dakota, was imprisoned of ‘aiding and possessing cocaine.” The crime is considered a felony under South Dakota law. However is merely a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act. (CSA)

In this case, Jose Lopez, a Mexican individual, immigrated to the United States illegally in 1986, but shortly became a legal permanent resident in 1990. He resided in the state of South Dakota, where he was charged and pleaded guilty to “aiding and abetting another person’s possession of cocaine”, which is compared to possessing a drug but also considered a felony under the South Dakota law and Lopez was sentenced to five-year term incarceration. Shortly after, the Immigration and Naturalization Servic...

... middle of paper ...

...eported to Mexico.

The ruling allows immigration judges to exercise greater discretion in determining whether immigrants with past minor drug convictions who face deportation are eligible for a disclaimer. Sometimes, immigrants are unethically subject to the punishment, which is deportation merely because they made a bad decision in their past that resulted in a minor drug conviction. In this case, Lopez understands that he must follow his deportation order because of his drug conviction. Since the ruling allows him to plead further circumstances to win the “cancellation of removal,” it by far is a difficult situation for him to demonstrate enough adequate information to get rid of his criminal record, his illegal crossing to the United States by crossing the border from Mexico, as well as his fraud in the application for a permanent resident alien status.

Open Document